Don't like being "strip searched" or "groped?"

The point where I can not choose to fly/drive/train/etc.

Flying is a personal choice. If you choose to participate in it, you must accept the requirements set forth by the governing bodies for the protection of not just YOU, or YOUR FAMILY -- but all people choosing that method of transportation.

Don't like it? Don't fly. Take a train. Write your congressional representatives to build high-speed rail. Invent a method of screening which accomplishes the same level of security without your perceived "invasion of privacy."

Overall, you have the choice to decide whether to participate in air travel or not.

 

I'm looking forward to my next flight. I'm going to wear my "body jewelry" that resides "below the belt" and see what trouble I can start. I have no problem pulling my dick out if they need a closer look. I already get pulled aside because of the all my plates in screws.

 

i dont see the big deal about this. if it helps prevent attacks on America, then im all for it. the people complaining about strict security measures at air ports are the same people who are gonna complain about security being too lax when bad shit really does happen. if you have a problem with security at air ports then dont fly.

 

x2. I have trouble believing that this AIT stuff is lifesaving technology that is preventing terrorist attacks everywhere.

I do know for a fact that this combination of searching is highly invasive, and until it's clearly demonstrated that it really is necessary, I say:

Why spend so much money on technology that may or may not prevent terrorist attacks when we could instead direct it to increase funding in general disaster response, which will be helpful in the event of a terrorist attack (by cargo plane, bus, regular plane) or a natural disaster (katrina, zombies, etc) OR something we haven't even seen yet?

Also, to those who say flying isn't a constitutional right: That's true, but then again, like it or not, it has become necessary for an awful lot of business. I and a lot of other people cannot do our jobs without airline travel. Our choices are accept humiliating searches or lose our jobs?

 

This assumption* is blatantly false.

I am complaining about overly invasive searches. I never complained that security was too lax, during 9/11 or otherwise. I realize shit happens, even bad shit.

 

You are exemplifying the characteristics of someone with a distinct conflict of interest. You work for the government and are probably subject to a lack of privacy just by working for the government.

What other reasonable choice is there to go from New York to San Francisco? You have to admit your reasoning that flying is completely a choice. Buying a donut is a 100% personal choice, but flying to your brother's wedding is about the only reasonable option. Sure, you could drive or take the train, but if you have a strict job, you'll be fired for taking a week longer than necessary by driving/taking train instead of flying. On a technical level, we do choose to fly, but that does not mean we wouldn't choose another reasonable option if presented offering similar convenience. If private flight costs were on par with commercial flights, I and everyone else would take them. But there is absolutely no choice except to fly commercial usually.

People have a choice to not shop at a supermarket, too, but that would be an unreasonable argument if/when the government were to start screening people entering a market.

 

And furthermore, I also realize that terrorists will find a way to hurt people, regardless of what we put in place, given enough time. Why encroach on the privacy of citizens and spend an awful lot of money on something that is unlikely to stop them? Seems pretty clear from the new attack attempts that they've switched to easier targets than passenger airlines already, with existing security measures that don't require nearly-nude photos of me or my genitalia being felt by a stranger.

 

well the day they find a bomb, or some other type of weapon, tucked underneath some guys nut sack or a womans breast, you'll be glad they did an "overly invasive search"

 

Working for the gov't has nothing to do with anything. And again- it's a choice I made to accept the parameters that come with the job I got. Much like choosing to accept the parameters that accompany air travel. And if you value your privacy so...Driving across country affords you protection from anyone you don't want to interact with (unless you break a law or break down)

And I agree with you that screening people entering a supermarket would be ridiculous- But here is where your objection to fear mongering isn't ringing true- because I have NEVER heard ANYONE suggest we screen supermarkets. That's simply NOT the situation. You are making up wild scenarios that haven't happened to try to prove how you are right about this.

 

I hardly think that reallocating funding from prevention to response is an efficient use of monies.

I have to fly all the time for work. I understand that it is a part of my profession. If I was ever in conflict about whether I was being humiliated, I would have a conversation with my employer. Failing a reasonable outcome from that, I would have to decide if my level of humiliation was sufficient enough to consider other employment -- positions which do not require me to fly.

It all still comes down to personal choice. Occasionally it just differs on the micro-to-macro scale.

 

Will I? You're assuming two things: they're going to find whatever it is by virtue of these new events AND that it's worth the cost.

As an analogy, we could prevent all car accidents by disallowing cars. This would work 100% of the time. Would you be for it? No? But we could prevent far more deaths per year than ever result from a terrorist attack! Right, because the cost is not worth it to you.

Before you shout at me for saying it isn't the same thing, it is exactly the same thing. We're talking about cost vs benefit. You're saying being imaged/groped is worth the possibility that it may uncover a terrorist plot. OK.

For me, it isn't, given that it doesn't help if we can catch bra terrorists if the next terrorist decides to use a bomb up their ass. I'm serious here, what then? Or the next terrorist decides to drive a car into the pentagon or sneak a missile in via boat or whatever.

Bruce Schneier had a great discussion on this in one of his books. Basically, terrorist attacks are few and far between. Terrorists are an extreme minority of people. Therefore, you're trying to catch a needle in a haystack. Furthermore, they do not do the same thing every time. We take off our shoes, nobody shoe bombs again. We can't have liquids, nobody tries a liquid bomb again. Etc.

The point is that the next attack will inherently be something different and be designed on purpose to try to work around the existing detection system as well as possible.

Why not try to improve the way we respond to a terrorist crisis (and any other crises) as a whole, so that we're able to respond, regardless of what happens? Seems like a much better use of resources than trying to find a needle in a haystack to me.

 

Of course, I'm not saying we should do nothing. I'm saying we should implement cost-effective solutions (like secured cockpits) that are cheap and effective.

Anything that is overly expensive or invasive, throw it out and work on something that costs less and does more.

 

Also: why on earth is funding general disaster response a bad idea? We've seen how much it could have helped during 9/11, Katrina, Haiti, and generally every disaster we've had.

 

I'll certainly agree that many security programs are inefficient and cumbersome.

As for the costs less/does more scenario, unfortunately, it just doesn't often happen. If you want something that does more, you usually have to pay more.

 

Here's the point: . Here's you:

I'm saying we need to look at this crap we're doing to feel good and cut things that cost billions of dollars with uncertain results. Example: Bomb particle detector the TSA spend 2 billion on that didn't work outside of a lab.

Of course, the expensive shit allows politicians to give kickbacks to the corporations whose pockets they are in.

 

I'm not saying it isn't a bad idea. I am saying that diverting funds from prevention to response is a bad idea, since we'll end up paying about 1,000,000,000x more in relief/response without adequate prevention.

It's like putting oil in your truck. $60 for an oil change on the front end is much cheaper than replacing the engine block after it fuses up on the backend.

Imagine if we didn't spend any money on terrorism prevention, and just spent millions and millions on response after terrorist attacks. Do you think that terrorists would cease to attack?

 

Again, we need common sense here. I'm saying I really doubt these stupid AIT machines will do a whole lot of good, because even with regular old metal detectors and bag searches, the terrorists have apparently moved on to trains, cargo planes, etc. In light of that, why spend the cash on this crap?

We don't know where the next successful attack will come from, but I'd bet a bunch of money it will have nothing to do with passenger planes, so why hurt airline business and invade our privacy?

The BIG difference is oil in your truck is like securing the cockpits: low cost, high effectiveness. The body screeners are like armoring the crap out of your front left bumper in case it hits a rock, and then you get nailed in the rear quarterpanel by some threat you didn't see coming.

 

No one has suggested screening at a market yet, because there has yet to be a terrorist attack in a market. We are a stupidly reactive society, we never look ahead, always attempting to repair our previous failures. Terrorists will find new ways to attack us while we focus on 'protecting our [already safe] skies' - think trains, buses, concerts, markets, water, etc. because they know we are looking the other way!

Driving across the country is NOT a reasonable alternative to flying, you know that but refuse to admit it because it's far too unreasonable.

 

x10000000% Exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

There is no single answer like securing cockpits...Cause then when they relax screen standards and someone/some group sneaks guns on board and everyone except the pilot and copilot end up dead we get into the same spiral of lawsuits for wrongful death and backlash that everyone is worried about now.
Continued advancing technology and common sense will continue to discourage attacks. Not prevent every one...but neither will secure cockpits or anything else.